Friday, May 30, 2014

They have no right.... deny you a safer alternative.

What the hell am I talking about?.

Is This The Cigarette Of The Future, And Will The FDA Let You Buy It? - Forbes

Here are my thoughts on the issue:

E-cigs, HnB (Heat not Burn), Swedish's all good when compared to combustion. The more choices, the better for the many smokers who will NOT quit. The continued or prolonged use of a cleaner form of nicotine/tobacco is NOT the same thing as getting CANCER. E-cigarettes have been a godsend for many people, thus access to them (by adults) should should not be restrained or curtailed with onerous and over reaching regulation.

With that said, I would like to stress that the same ideology (as expressed above) should be extended to HnB (Heat not Burn) and other low TSNA (Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines) tobacco products.

There are over 1 BILLION smokers in the world that stand to benefit from the many new and novel (and some not so new) developments that are taking place in the world of science and Tobacco Harm Reduction. THR can succeed where the traditional quit or die approach has failed.

As a former smoker who has switched over to HnB entirely (via the Ploom modelTwo and the PAX), I resent the fact that my very life hangs in the balance of some future decision(s) that will ultimately be made by some tax hungry bureaucrat somewhere whom I have never even met. There is nothing fair or just about the probability that millions of adult smokers will be denied access to something that can very well save their lives.

De facto prohibition is only prolonging the misery. It's time for a change. Every tax paying smoker reserves the right to choose the least risky option according to their own personal preference(s). That's the way that it's "supposed" to work in a free society.

The FDA has no right to suppress harm reduction.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Smokers can still light up at parks

...a bit of common sense from a small desert community in Arizona..

Thansks to Audrey Silk for posting this on FB via NYC CLASH:

Council Member Tami Ring said she took anpoll at her workplace and found her coworkers — all nonsmokers — said it didn’t matter to them that people smoke in parks, because it’s not inan enclosed area. Ring said she thought the police department would have trouble enforcing it and it’s “unnecessary.”

Most people are not zealots when it comes to the issue of smoking, vaping, and/or tobacco use. Take comfort in knowing that it is they that are abnormal and intolerant.

This rings especially true:

“It borders on freedom of speech. I don’t think this is right for Bullhead City,” said Vice Mayor Kathy Bruck.

A few of us in the blogosphere have been saying this for awhile now and it makes perfect sense when you think about it, for when one attempts to ban something on the grounds of "we don't want to see you putting anything into your mouth" um, because we don't personally approve of it, then said person or group is attempting to regulate freedom of expression and speech.

Is there anything more integral to a free society than freedom of speech? I shudder to think of a world where even the poets have gone silent.

...pretty place that Bullhead City...

I've always been a big fan of the desert and its sounds of howling coyotes in the night. Perhaps I'll make it back out west someday . If and when I do, I'm going to have to make sure to make a pit-stop in Bullhead City to see if I can soak up some of that strange voodoo that appears to be in such limited supply most everywhere else.

Smokers can still light up at parks - Mohave Daily News: News